Guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies.

B C Reeves, W Gaus
{"title":"Guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies.","authors":"B C Reeves,&nbsp;W Gaus","doi":"10.1159/000080576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-randomised studies (NRSs) are useful because they allow interventions to be evaluated that are difficult to investigate by randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, NRSs are more susceptible to bias. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was established to ensure that researchers report features of RCTs that must be considered when appraising their quality. CONSORT has improved the reporting of key information, highlighting missing key information for users. Researchers have a responsibility to report essential information that allows users to assess the susceptibility of NRS to selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. This paper considers criteria for reporting cohort studies: the rationale behind the CONSORT criteria for reporting of RCTs will be applied to cohort studies. Many of the criteria need no modification but application of others raise difficult issues for cohort studies, e.g.: description and standardisation of control and intervention treatments; description of the method of allocation; choice of prognostic factors to be collected; distinguishing between intended and provided treatments; collection of data on adverse and longterm outcomes; establishing a priori plans for analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":80278,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde = Research in complementary and natural classical medicine","volume":"11 Suppl 1 ","pages":"46-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000080576","citationCount":"50","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde = Research in complementary and natural classical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000080576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 50

Abstract

Non-randomised studies (NRSs) are useful because they allow interventions to be evaluated that are difficult to investigate by randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, NRSs are more susceptible to bias. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was established to ensure that researchers report features of RCTs that must be considered when appraising their quality. CONSORT has improved the reporting of key information, highlighting missing key information for users. Researchers have a responsibility to report essential information that allows users to assess the susceptibility of NRS to selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. This paper considers criteria for reporting cohort studies: the rationale behind the CONSORT criteria for reporting of RCTs will be applied to cohort studies. Many of the criteria need no modification but application of others raise difficult issues for cohort studies, e.g.: description and standardisation of control and intervention treatments; description of the method of allocation; choice of prognostic factors to be collected; distinguishing between intended and provided treatments; collection of data on adverse and longterm outcomes; establishing a priori plans for analysis.

报告非随机研究的指南。
非随机研究(NRSs)是有用的,因为它们允许评估难以通过随机对照试验(rct)调查的干预措施。然而,nrs更容易受到偏见的影响。建立联合试验报告标准(CONSORT)声明是为了确保研究人员报告在评价随机对照试验质量时必须考虑的特征。CONSORT改进了关键信息的报告,为用户突出显示缺失的关键信息。研究人员有责任报告基本信息,使用户能够评估NRS对选择、性能、检测和损耗偏差的敏感性。本文考虑了报告队列研究的标准:CONSORT报告随机对照试验标准背后的基本原理将应用于队列研究。许多标准无需修改,但其他标准的应用为队列研究带来了难题,例如:控制和干预治疗的描述和标准化;分配方法说明;选择要收集的预后因素;区分预期治疗和提供治疗;收集关于不良后果和长期后果的数据;建立一个先验的分析计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信